O'Leary breathlessly announces a new ID film. Obviously all that ID based peer reviewed research leaves them craving a break...

Quote

The film, directed by Nathan Frankowski, features people like Rick Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker, scientists victimized by the Darwin cult. Stein also confronts a number of cultists, including the Smithsonian congregation that drove out Rick Sternberg (and called security on the film crew), as well as Richard Dawkins.

A "major feature" film defends intelligent design, no less.

O'Leary also notes

Quote

The film has already received endorsements from Michael Medved, Peter Furler (of Newsboys)and J.I.Packer. It is not funded by Discovery Institute but by software entrepreneur Ruloff who lives on Bowen Island in British Columbia, Canada, and a team of supporters.

It's come to something when you've got to note that this time your propaganda is not funded by the usual suspects.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Why didn't they go the whole propaganda hog and ressurect Leni Riefenstahl for the director's chair? After all wasn't she merely a misunderstood and misused propagandist film maker? Shouldn't birds of a misunderstood feather flock together?

Yes, the accurate reflection of the fact he was denied tenure for failing to bring in the sweet, sweet funding will be replaced by the innaccurate claim that evil Darwinian atheists who hate Jesus materialists hell bent keen on keeping kookery, falsheood, non-science, religious claims and utter drivel The Truth (TM patent pending) which includes Jesus no religious material at all out of science.

Einstein - "God does not play dice" quantum mechanics denier. I jest, but I don't think he believed in a personal God:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own - a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature." Albert Einstein

ooh this is fun. any advice on how to improve my undercover tard cloaking device?

Quote

Can't wait to see the movie. I'm sure it will blow the socks off those evilutionists who deny the all=mighty purposeful hand of god who has clearly invested a lot of his(her?) time in designing the phalluses of katydids and tinkering with the chimpanzee genome to fool materialists.

Athiest darwinist materialists have held the pulpit for too long, with their evidence and predictive power. The tide is turning in churches and homeschooled classrooms across the globe, upholding the observation that all true science is given to us from God and is an exploration of his glory and omnipotence. Only fools demand evidence to believe something.

Additionally, with the growing impetus behind Intelligent Design (including a real science journal and lots of internet weblogs that thankfully don't worry about the opposing views to their arguments) soon we can be sure to see some real ID research from the growing number of ID labs in the United States. All Science So Far!!!

Stifling dissent is unamerican and unchristian. Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion, there are even atheist pleasurians in the fold. In short, it is all about the maths.

Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. Do you realize that some of the leading lights of ?anti-intelligent design? would not allow a scientist who merely believed in the possibility of an intelligent designer/creator to work for him? EVEN IF HE NEVER MENTIONED the possibility of intelligent design in the universe?EVEN FOR HIS VERY THOUGHTS? HE WOULD BE BANNED.

Instead of denigrating these employers who fire people for their unspoken thoughts, we should be leveraging their mind-reading powers in more productive ways, like prisoner interrogation, or finding out whether the writers of Lost actually have a story plan.

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.

Haha. Medved in bed with righter-christers agin. What a stinking pile of "so fucked, what?"His right-wing fanatic friends behaved like yowling cats in Jerusalem during the New Year's countdown to Y2K. You made your bed (again), Medved.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

Under a new anti-religious dogmatism, scientists and educators are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator. I

Well, I certainly do hope, with all sincerity, that this film gets a full and complete showing, in court, the next time some idiotic school board tries to bullshit everyone into accepting some ID "science textbook" because "ID ain't about religion or god, no sirree Bob, and it's just them atheist darwinists and activist judges who think so."

These morons STILL have no clue at all why they keep losing.

Surreal.

I thank God, every single day, that fundies are so utterly completely unalterably irredeemably mind-numbingly jaw-droppingly stupid.

I visited my creations to find them badly corrupted by the bizarre character set issue that has lately afflicted the board. Search and replace fixed most of the character substitutions (I've learned from Pandas), but this board software does not handle long links well very well (often breaking them into segments such that they are no longer recognized as links) so I was sawing legs of a four-legged table for quite some time (every correction seemed to introduce new errors). They're not completely fixed but I'm gonna leave it alone until the charset issue is corrected.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Here‚Äôs a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, "bring it on!" We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol' wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.

I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.

Even for creationists, I find this kind of behavior to be somewhat shocking.

As I've said here before, engineers and scientists are natural allies in this dispute. When the IDist engineers talk about engineering they misrepresent it as much as they misrepresent science. I have pointed this out over at UD several times, with some limited success.

You don't hear more from the mainstream engineers simply because the IDists aren't calling for reforms of engineering. (They conveniently ignore the fact that engineering is at least as materialistic as science is.)

Oh, and F*** you.

--------------Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

As I've said here before, engineers and scientists are natural allies in this dispute. When the IDist engineers talk about engineering they misrepresent it as much as they misrepresent science. I have pointed this out over at UD several times, with some limited success.

You don't hear more from the mainstream engineers simply because the IDists aren't calling for reforms of engineering. (They conveniently ignore the fact that engineering is at least as materialistic as science is.)

Mario A. Lopez shows us that ID is more about appearances in the comments

Quote

Hello Mr. Stein,

I am glad to see that you have joined in the battle against the Darwinian Gestapo. The great thing about all of this is that they have already admitted to the ?appearance? of design in nature, and better still, lack the mechanism to account for it.

These are exciting times.

Is that kinda like how ID has the "appearance" of intelligence but it vanishes on closer examination?

And Darwinian Gestapo? Something of an insult to the real people who were tortured by the real Gestapo methinks....

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Errrm, ID doesn't have anything to do with religion or God. It has to do with defeating materialism, which is anti-religion and anti-God. See it doesn't have anything to do with it.

And it's all science so far!!! the Explanatory Filter can identify design, except in cases where it doesn't, and your credit card number either has Complex Specified Information in it, or it doesn't. You just have to ask the right IDist and be prepared for the definition and talking points to change.

And it is completely compatible with evolutionary theory, except in cases where it isn't. Depends on who you ask in the BIG TENT of Intelligent Design. Some are young earth creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis), some are Old Earth Creationists (based on the evidence, of course, given in Genesis) and some (one) are atheist pleasurian polymaths, and many many many many more (the rest) are just regular old bible-believing plain folks that don't have time to wade through facts and the logical structure of propositions. Science=Democracy! All Science So Far!!!

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG